Earlier this week, Iraqi leaders agreed on a statement that specifically stated that killing occupying forces was not terrorism. They basically said that it's justified to kill in the name of resistance which really means it's okay to kill
US soldiers and marines?:
In Egypt, the final communique's attempt to define terrorism omitted any reference to attacks against U.S. or Iraqi forces. Delegates from across the political and religious spectrum said the omission was intentional. They spoke anonymously, saying they feared retribution.
"Though resistance is a legitimate right for all people, terrorism does not represent resistance. Therefore, we condemn terrorism and acts of violence, killing and kidnapping targeting Iraqi citizens and humanitarian, civil, government institutions, national resources and houses of worships," the document said.
The Iraqi leaders made it clear that while they oppose terrorism, killing US soldiers isn't terrorism. The document had a decidedly anti-US tenor to it. So, what's the US reaction? Your
Secretary of State said don't believe what they wrote. She applied the Bush/Rove lens to that document. In other words, just because they said it, doesn't mean you should believe it. The Bush administration says things all the time that aren't true. They just assume everyone else does the same thing:
QUESTION: The Iraqi factions, who don't always get along, have been meeting with the Arab League and others as they prepare for next month's elections. A statement they did agree on says that they recognize the legitimate right of Iraqi citizens to resist the occupation forces. How do you explain that to the parent or the spouse of an American serviceman or woman on the ground in Iraq, getting shot at every day, that the people they're fighting for, the people they're trying to protect to bring these elections and this democracy about, say that the people who are shooting at them have a legitimate right to do so?
SECRETARY RICE: Well, that's not how I read the statement, John. I do think there were many, many voices at this conference -- and by the way, the Iraqi Government was there, but so were many, many people who were not -- and the purpose is to try to give all Iraqis a sense of stake in their future. But the line about resistance was very quickly followed by, but of course we condemn terrorism and of course violence should not be sanctioned. I think what they were trying to do was to get a sense of political inclusion while recognizing that violence and terrorism should not be a part of resistance. After all, do Iraqis really want to -- any Iraqi, sitting around that table, want to suggest that killing an innocent Iraqi child standing at a bus stop is legitimate? Or that killing Iraqi soldiers who are lining up at recruitment centers is legitimate? Or even that multinational forces -- who by the way are there under a UN mandate -- are somehow legitimate targets?
I don't think that that was what was being communicated. But I would just remind people that this was a really broad range of voices, and the Iraqis who have governed themselves by violence and coercion are now trying to do it by compromise and politics.
This is outrageous. Yeah, they said they oppose terrorism, but US forces are viewed as occupiers, so that's legit. Rice and Bush are covering for a government that wants to kill our young men and women.
And, the GOP claims to support our troops. In reality, they are supporting a government that sanctions killing them.
Read the rest of this post...
